#and nuance

[n0isy-gh0st]

“Writing a gay character with substance abuse issues is a harmful stereotype!!1”

stop. S T O P.

[gottagetshiver]

Just wanted to let you know, your tags on that poll about who's the worst made me laugh so hard because it's so true and the main reason I'm currently taking a break from twitter.

Thank you so much for the laugh - I needed it so much ♥️

If the general mentality and behaviour of dttwt has no haters, then I am dead.

On a more serious note, I think they’ve just become so riled up and obsessed with moral purity and “cleaning up the community” that they simply have forgotten how to tolerate people who think differently than them and how to dislike something without assigning moral value to it.

The day they all learn to block/mute/unfollow and to simply dislike someone/something without feeling like they need to hop on a soapbox to justify it is the day my weary bones will know peace. Like FUCKSAKE am I tired of the unending stream of callouts and “erm actually ur a freak!” comments

[mayapapaya33]

I'm watching For Candia Part 1 and I am so done with all of these people. By "All of these people" I mean the House of Rocks family drama. Cumulous is exempt. His last name might be Rocks but he ran off to the monastery 30+ years ago and gave up the family drama. He's off in the corner crying over shiny magic weapons and murdering chickens for temp hp. Liam is also exempt, he's out here gloom stalking his way around assassinating people in fucked up ways and being sweet with Primsy.

Theo is half exempt, because his feelings were hurt by not being told about the "who is currently the ruler of Candia" secret. But he really should know Amethar and Ruby better than that, so he only gets a half point. Caramelinda also gets a half point because she is definitely smarter than everyone else here and her ruthlessness and clear vision is kind of inspiring, but I'm also annoyed that she resorted to secrecy and potential murder quite so quickly, even though from her pov I actually do understand it and find it pretty reasonable all things considered lol. I want to take a brick to everyone else's skulls until they stop being dumb. I guess I'll just be gentler with the brick for Theo and Caramelinda haha.

And they still haven't fully digested how bad and wrong a crusade against the entire Bulbian church is. Sure Saccharina was like, "hey I told you guys to kill discriminately, not INdiscriminately!" But that's pretty laughable considering she literally declared a crusade against the church. Innocent people die in crusades dumbass. These are your people; they take their cues from you. None of your plans for the church had any nuance to them. It's your responsibility to say what you mean and mean what you say. You can't half ass a crusade. Honestly if I were Gooey and Swifty I'd be like... um boss lady, I thought you wanted to kill all the Bulbians and drive them from the lands and strike fear into their hearts? Remember that fun book burning party we just had? I'm getting mixed messages here.

[bitterbareface]

People not comprehending Nosferatu correctly might kill me. Yes it's erotic and about pleasure but yes it's devastating and about child sexual abuse. It's a movie about victimhood, about being already dead, about longing for the great beyond, about never feeling safe from your abuser, about always expecting one more rape must be endured. It is about being an ugly victim, a neurotic victim. About your supposed allies tying you down for fear you will rip their world to ribbons. It is about facing the abuser, facing the pleasure the abuser brought. It is about men seeking to silence a plague in the quiet of the night when grooming and abuse can only be destroyed by pulling it into the light of morning.

[gayvampyr]

no offense but you guys need to learn the difference between someone implying their experience is universal and a post simply just not being about you

[sarafroot]

[asturlavi]

a hell of your own making

[wizardnuke]

"i hate microlabels" yeah i also kind of dislike the idea of putting ourselves and our identities into very specific boxes, i think it can be really isolating- ohh wait you mean you think they're invalid. ohh no that's not the way to look at it. killing you

[trans-pickles]

you don't need to write a dark deconstruction of Peter Pan where he's willing to kill people and his state of eternal childhood makes him morally ambiguous, JM Barrie already wrote one and it's called Peter Pan

[homunculus-argument]

for the sake of clarity: The first option means hunting for wild game, and/or killing farm animals that have been raised for their meat. Not hunting sheep like they're game.

[justicewasserved]

tma is a show which spends the first 100 episodes going "look at these monsters. aren't they fucked up. yeah and they're all so happy being monsters who hurt people monstrously" and then the protagonist who you've spent hours listening to at this point becomes one of those fucked up monsters, forcing you to either dismiss him as evil or you have to fully change how you view all the previous monsters. and then they spend the next 100 episodes dealing with that

[mwagneto]

aint no WAYYY THEY JUST TRIED TO SAY THAT. not even "the doctor's" but doctor who's in general 💀💀 so now that they have a disney contract every single gay thing (which they've had for fucking decades) is gonna be a huge big huge first gay thing ever!!1!1!1!! event??? like yeah there's a very specific significance to it i get it but what the fuck do you mean😭 jamie pull up the files

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[valtsv]

are we still doing this because i have a late submission

[lgbtlunaverse]

Obsessed with characters who portray themselves as worse than they are. Who are lying to everyone including themselves about it. People generally assume if someone's lying about themselves they're trying to look better but sometimes they're trying to look worse. They attribute agency to where they had none, add intent to accidents, try to convince everyone that this is something they did instead of something that happened to them.